Displaying posts published in

November 2017

Dawa: Sowing the Seeds of Hate by Judith Bergman

“In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to bring about more extreme views among existing Muslims. The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with strict sharia.” — Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her book, The Challenge of Dawa: Political Islam as Ideology and Movement and How to Counter It.

The ultimate goal of establishing an Islamic state in the United States could hardly be much clearer. The pretense of caring for “diversity” and “inclusion” that ICNA displays on its public website cannot be characterized as anything other than an attempt at dissimulation, as is the stated goal of “establishing a place for Islam in America.”

If Western leadership is unable to fathom the danger posed by organizations such as Tablighi Jamaat, iERA and ICNA, and, according to critics, others such as CAIR and ISNA — let alone do something about it, instead of endlessly obsessing over “Islamophobia” — Qaradawi could be proven right.

While the West is preoccupied with fighting “hate speech”, “Islamophobia” and white supremacist groups, it appears more than willing to ignore the cultivation of Muslim hate speech and supremacist attitudes towards non-Muslims.

It is a cultivation that occurs especially in the process of dawa, the Muslim practice of Islamic outreach or proselytizing, the results of which seem to have been on show this week in a downtown New York terror attack. The terrorist, Sayfullo Saipov, originally from Uzbekistan, was apparently only radicalized after he moved to the United States. The mosque he attended in New Jersey had been under surveillance by the NYPD since 2005. A 2016 U.S.-commissioned report said Uzbek nationals were “most likely to radicalize while working as migrants abroad,” according to the U.S. State Department.

On the surface, dawa, or outreach — in person or online — appears to be a benign missionary activity, about converting non-Muslims. Legal in Western societies, it is allowed to proceed undisturbed by the media or government. Dawa generally attracts little attention, except when members of an outreach organization suddenly turn up in the headlines as full-fledged jihadists.

Politicians and the media in the West seem to prefer viewing Islam solely as a religion and not as a political system that, according to critics, seeks to impose its own laws and regulations, sharia, on the world.

According to the Somali-born Muslim dissident and author, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, however, in her recent book, The Challenge of Dawa: Political Islam as Ideology and Movement and How to Counter It:

“The term ‘dawa’ refers to activities carried out by Islamists to win adherents and enlist them in a campaign to impose sharia law on all societies. Dawa is not the Islamic equivalent of religious proselytizing, although it is often disguised as such… [It] includes proselytization, but extends beyond that. In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to bring about more extreme views among existing Muslims. The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with strict sharia.”

Truck Leasing Businesses Warned to Watch for Suspicious Customers 6 Months Before NYC Attack By Bridget Johnson

Six months before this week’s Manhattan bike path attack, the Transportation Security Administration warned about the threat of “unsophisticated” vehicle ramming attacks and distributed guidance for rental counters, prepared in conjunction with the truck leasing industry, on spotting potential terrorists.

The security and awareness brochure prepared by the Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA) and the Department of Homeland Security advised employees of companies that rent out trucks how to spot and report suspicious behavior, including customers “inquiring whether vehicles can be modified to handle heavier loads, create additional storage areas, increase fuel capacity, or vehicle speed.”

In an explicit vehicle-attack infographic in the May issue of their Rumiyah magazine, ISIS told would-be jihadis to rent a vehicle with a “slightly raised chassis and bumper,” a “double-wheeled, load-bearing truck” that is “large in size, heavy in weight” and is “fast in speed or rate of acceleration.”

That month, the TSA issued a report on the vehicle ramming threat that discussed reporting “any suspicions arising from the rental of large capacity vehicles in areas and within a proximate timeframe of parades and other celebratory gatherings, sporting events, entertainment venues, shopping centers, or other activities which place crowds near roads, streets or venues accessible by vehicles,” as well as “repeat renters who may appear to be ‘practicing’ their large vehicle skills in the time leading up to a nearby open event.”

The TRALA brochure distributed to companies said “insisting on renting a truck with a wooden rather than metal floor” could be a red flag, as well as using cash for large transactions or a customer being vague about references or the name used to rent the vehicle. The guide advised looking out for customers “wearing extraordinary attire such as heavy coats in the summertime” or who “seem to have attempted to disguise their appearance.”

Returned vehicles that “show physical evidence or produce an odor suggesting chemical or fertilizer transport” should be reported by employees, as well as those that “contain maps, blueprints, photos or drawings of buildings, roads, or other infrastructure or notes regarding the surveillance of such objects.”

“Always be observant of your surroundings whether at the rental counter, inside or outside the company’s facility, or in the areas near your company’s location,” the brochure states, and pay attention to “unauthorized persons loitering where rental vehicles are parked or serviced.”

Why Israelis are Successful Fighting Terror By Shoula Romano Horing see note please

Nice feel good column, but Israel is equally successful in appeasing terrorists : Exhibit A: The Oslo Surrender and the infamous handshake between Israel’s Prime Minister Rabin and arch terrorist Arafat. Exhibit B: Surrendering Gaza to Hamas which is used as a terrorist have for jihad against Israel. Exhibit C: Negotiating with Mahmoud Abbas who is a clone of Arafat in a suit and flogging a process that will leave Israel defenseless…..rsk

After the recent Islamic terrorist vehicular attack in Lower Manhattan, people ask me as an Israeli: “what is Israel’s secret to living daily with Palestinian Arab terrorism and the country’s ability to prosper in spite of it?”

The answer is: Israel’s secret weapon is the Israeli civilians who feel responsible for each other and therefore are willing to sacrifice themselves fighting and defeating terror to save others. The Israeli public does not hide or run away from the terrorists to save themselves, but rather confronts the terrorists in an effort to save their fellow citizens. From airline hijackings, suicide bombings, stabbings, shootings, and vehicle attacks, Israel has seen them all and has adapted accordingly

While other countries in the West rely solely or mostly on the police and security services to stop terrorists, in Israel the public is a full, independent partner in the fight. Thirty percent of terrorist attacks have been thwarted by civilians in Israel, who fight back by striking the terrorists with everything they had such as a pizza tray, an umbrella, a selfie stick, a guitar, chairs, pepper spray, and guns. While in England the police want the schoolkids to be taught the message of “hide, run, tell,” a child growing up in Israel, is encouraged always to think what will he do proactively if he or she were facing a terrorist.

The most popular YouTube videos posted online are those that show the heroic actions of citizens fighting back or impeding a terrorist. Family, friends, and society applaud, admire, and approve of such actions to defeat terrorism in order to survive, and those people are treated as heroes.

As the most persecuted people in history, Jews have a large amount of experience of living under threats to their very existence as a people and surviving therm. The Israelis have used these experiences to chart a new path and develop a new mental strength and determination that “never again” will Jews timidly be led like a sheep to the slaughter. One of the most popular Hebrew expressions which echoes daily in each Israeli’s mind is: “Ain Brera” which means “there is no other alternative.” In other words, the Jews in Israel will fight for their survival with their backs to the wall or to the sea and with any means available and as long as it takes. After 2000 years of being the “wandering Jew,” fleeing persecutions to other places is not an alternative. Israelis are in their own state with their own army and they will fight and as live a normal life at the same time. There is the realization among the citizens that after having others decide out future, we at last control our own destiny in our homeland and are willing to sacrifice ourselves to protect this home.


CNN parted ways with political commentator Donna Brazile after leaked e-mails demonstrated what appeared to be improper collusion with Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Donna Brazile was fired from CNN after leaked e-mails suggested she used her position to pass information to the Clinton campaign about upcoming appearances.Veteran Democratic operative Donna Brazile finally admitted that she used her former position as a CNN commentator to relay questions ahead of debates to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary.

For months, Brazile has avoided confirming that hacked emails from the campaign showed her forwarding the questions, which were asked at separate debates. But in a new essay for Time magazine looking back on the hackings, she said it was true.

Fight Breaks Out Among Democrats Over 2016 Campaign Former DNC chairwoman accuses Hillary Clinton’s team of unethical practices; they say her facts are off By Louise Radnofsky

WASHINGTON—Democrats became embroiled in an intraparty fight Friday over last year’s presidential election.

Donna Brazile, the interim chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee during the election, asserted in a new book that the fundraising agreement between the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign was unethical because it gave her too much influence on the party’s infrastructure.

In excerpts published on Politico, Ms. Brazile said Mrs. Clinton’s campaign raised money for the DNC and helped fund it, and in return took control of its finances and strategy as well as the funds. Ms. Brazile noted that it is common practice for a presidential nominee to take control of his or her party’s operations and fundraising.

But she said Mrs. Clinton’s campaign signed the agreement with the DNC in August 2015, almost a year before she clinched the party’s nomination. That disadvantaged Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in his primary fight with Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Brazile wrote.

Late Friday, Mrs. Clinton’s supporters pointed to a memo obtained by NBC News that said the agreement related only to the general election.

“Enough of this. If you’re a Democrat, we have things to do,” wrote Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, Nick Merrill, in a Twitter message referencing the reported memo.

WSJ’s Gerald F. Seib explains what have we learned after Special Counsel Robert Mueller unveiled his first two big actions in his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. Photo: Getty

DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement Friday morning that “there shouldn’t even be a perception that the DNC is interfering” in the primary process. She noted that both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders had the option to raise money through joint DNC accounts.

The two campaigns set up joint fundraising accounts with the DNC during the Democratic primary, though the accounts were ultimately used very differently. Joint fundraising accounts allow campaigns and parties to solicit larger individual donations that are then divvied up between the entities that sign the agreement.

Mr. Sanders shunned big-dollar fundraising, relying instead on small donors to fuel his campaign. Mrs. Clinton, however, routinely held large-dollar fundraisers for her joint account with the DNC and state parties—some of which would then transfer the funds they received back to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. CONTINUE AT SITE

What John Kelly Got Right About Robert E. Lee The Confederate general embodied in countless ways the poignancy and tragedy of the Civil War. By Jay Winik

Robert E. Lee is back in the news thanks to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. In a Fox News interview Monday, Mr. Kelly called Gen. Lee “an honorable man” and observed that “men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had made them stand.”

Mr. Kelly has a point. It is worth remembering that Lee, who has lately been painted as a traitorous caricature, embodied in countless ways the poignancy and tragedy of the Civil War. It would be a gross misfortune if the political debate obscures his story.

Lee’s lineage was impeccable. His father was Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee III, the celebrated Revolutionary War general and close friend of George Washington. Lee himself descended from two signers of the Declaration of Independence, and his wife, who later became an ardent Confederate, was none other than Mary Custis, a great-granddaughter of Martha Washington and, through adoption, of George Washington himself.

Lee agonized over whether to fight for the Confederacy. As war loomed, Abraham Lincoln offered him command of the new Union Army, a position he had always coveted. Despite being an avowed Federalist who longed for compromise to save the Union, Lee, like so many others, gave in to the permanency of birth and blood. “I cannot raise my hand against my birthplace, my home, my children,” he wrote a friend, “save in defense of my native state.” Instead he became the commanding general of the Confederate armies, while predicting that the country would pass “through a terrible ordeal.” He was right.

Still, he was never much of a hater. Like Lincoln, more often than not Lee called the other side “those people,” rather than “the enemy.” Nor was it clear that he loved war itself. “It is well that war is so terrible,” he once said, “or we should grow too fond of it.” With words that could have been uttered by Lincoln, Lee talked of the cruelty of war, how it filled “our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors.”

Nor was he fond of slavery, once describing it as “a moral and political evil.” True, he did benefit from slavery. But in 1863, one day after the Emancipation Proclamation took effect, Lee went a step further than Thomas Jefferson ever did and freed his family slaves, fulfilling the wishes of his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis. And in 1865, as the Confederacy stood on the throes of destruction, Lee supported a dramatic measure to put slaves in uniform and train them to fight, which would have effectively emancipated them.

Upon the conflict’s close, Lee gave a forceful interview to the New York Herald in which he strongly condemned Lincoln’s assassination and claimed that the “best men of the South” had long wanted to see slavery’s end. Later he declared, “I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished.”

Arguably his most powerful statement about race relations came at war’s end in St. Paul’s Church, the congregation of the Richmond elite. To the horror of many of the congregants, a well-dressed black man advanced to take communion, and knelt down at the altar rail. The minister froze, unsure what to do. Lee knelt down next to the black man to partake of the communion with him.

Finally, Lee’s greatest legacy was not in war, but in peace. Lee went to great pains to heal the bitterness that cleaved the country after Appomattox. When Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant, in arguably one of the most moving scenes in American history, the military situation remained quite perilous. The war was still raging. Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, was on the run, calling on Southerners to take to the hills and wage guerrilla warfare. This at a time when there were still three Confederate armies, and hatreds between North and South were at their peak. Lincoln was assassinated five days later. Had the South undertaken guerrilla warfare, it’s more than likely the U.S. would have broken up into two countries.


Clinton: There Is A Difference Between Paying For Trump Dossier And “Collusion” With Russia

On Wednesday’s broadcast of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, Hillary Clinton told host Trevor Noah that there is a difference between the Clinton campaign and the DNC working together to obtain the infamous Russian-tainted Trump dossier and the possibility that “Trump’s people” worked with Russians…

Sen. Warren: “Yes,” The Democratic Presidential Primary Was Rigged For Hillary Clinton

On Thursday’s broadcast of The Lead, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told CNN host Jake Tapper she believes that the 2016 Democratic presidential primary was rigged in favor of the party’s eventual nominee Hillary Clinton. JAKE TAPPER: I want to ask you one other question, Senator, we learned…
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: “The DNC Needs To Be Completely Overhauled… No More Games, No More Retaliation”

TULSI GABBARD: Earlier today we heard from Donna Brazile that what many people had suspected for a long time turned out to be true. The DNC secretly chose their nominee over a year before the primary elections even occurred.

This shines a light on how deeply broken the campaign finance laws are — and how they have weakened individual candidates while strengthening and empowering political parties and special interests.

These laws essentially allowed the Clinton campaign to bypass individual campaign contribution limits by funneling millions of dollars through the DNC and state parties — taking control of the DNC in the process.

Along with the recent retaliatory purge of Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison supporters from the DNC’s executive committee, this is just further evidence that the DNC needs to be completely overhauled, to take our party back from the special interests and the powerful few, and put it back in the hands of the people.

We must bring about real campaign finance reform. We must get rid of the undemocratic system of superdelegates. We must implement instant or same-day registration in Democratic primaries, and actually encourage voter engagement.

Did Hillary’s rigging at the DNC push Biden out of the race? John Podhoretz

The stunning revelation by longtime operative Donna Brazile that the Hillary Clinton campaign secretly took control — literal control — of the Democratic National Committee a year before Hillary became the party’s nominee is the talk of American politics.

As it should be.

Brazile’s piece in Politico describes her shock at the discovery of formal legal paperwork between the two entities when she took the reins at the DNC in August 2016. Brazile had been tapped for the job when DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign. Leaked emails had shown how Schultz had been putting her finger on the scale to help Clinton while the insurgent Bernie Sanders campaign was making a serious bid to seize the party nomination away from New York’s favorite carpetbagger.

Her account features ridiculous and unbelievable melodramatics — she says she “gasped” when she found out the truth and that she “lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music” to calm her before she called Sanders to deliver the awful news.

But silly though Brazile’s prose is, her account is vitally important not only for all those who want to understand how American politics works but also for the future of Brazile’s beloved party.

First, it raises key questions about what was happening as Clinton faced a time of trial in the middle of 2015. Her reputation was taking hits as her evasions and denials and untruths about what had happened to the private email server she had set up illegitimately in 2009 seemed to mushroom on a daily basis.

As this was happening, she found herself with only two semi-serious challengers for the nomination — Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

There was another person out there — then-Vice President Joe Biden. Though grieving over the tragic loss of his son Beau, Biden was still seriously considering a late entry into the race. Indeed, it would not be until October that Biden would declare himself out of contention.

Consider, then, that a formal agreement signed by the DNC and the Clinton campaign was executed in August 2015, two months before Biden made his decision.

The agreement, according to Brazile, “specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics and mailings.”


When Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn refused to attend this week’s dinner in London to mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, a dinner to which Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been invited as the guest of Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May, Corbyn said Labour’s shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry would attend in his place.

Now remarks made by Thornberry inescapably imply that, like Corbyn, she too regrets the fact that Israel was ever created. Instead she supports its mortal enemies whose agenda remains Israel’s destruction.

In an interview published today with the Middle East Eye news site, Thornberry said the UK should not celebrate the Balfour Declaration, which pledged Britain’s support for a Jewish national home, because there is not yet a Palestinian state.

“I don’t think we celebrate the Balfour Declaration but I think we have to mark it because I think it was a turning point in the history of that area and I think probably the most important way of marking it is to recognise Palestine.”

And she went on to blame Israel for the fact that there was no state of Palestine.

The fact that she paid the usual lip-service to “two viable secure safe states” cuts no ice whatsoever. If she believes that the original commitment by the British government to restoring the Jewish people to their own rightful homeland is not something to be celebrated in itself, the deep hostility to Israel as a Jewish state that this inescapably implies vitiates any pious backing for “two viable states” side by side.

Her support for the existence of Israel is, by her own lights, conditional on the existence of a state of Palestine. She thus displays her profound ignorance of Jewish, Arab and Middle Eastern history by assuming that people called the Palestinians were entitled to the same promise of a national homeland.

There was never, of course, any “Palestinian” people.The reason the Balfour Declaration promised the former land of Israel to the Jews was that they are theonly people for whom that land was ever their national kingdom, the only extant indigenous people of that land and who were merely to be restored to their own homeland from which they had been exiled by succeeding waves of occupiers.

Language Wars: The Road to Tyranny Is Paved with Language Censorship By Michael W. Cutler

The AP Stylebook on ‘Illegal Immigrants’

Anyone following the immigration debate over the years has noticed the mass media’s increased usage of “undocumented workers” in reference to illegal aliens. TSC contributor Michael Cutler draws attention to the influence of political correctness on language and rhetoric when it comes to the topic of illegal immigration. Accuracy in language usage and the stifling impact of euphemistic uniformity are legitimate concerns.

The Associate Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law* is the standard reference guide for journalists. It contains useful information on capitalization, abbreviation, spelling, numerals and usage, punctuation, privacy, access to government information, defamation, and libel.

The AP Stylebook uses the term “illegal immigrant” (not “illegal alien” or “undocumented worker”). It states that illegal immigrant is “used to describe someone who has entered the country illegally or who resides in the country illegally. It is the preferred term, notillegal alien or undocumented worker. Do not use the shortened term an illegal or illegals.”

Immigration and ethnic activists have pushed sympathetic journalists to use “undocumented worker” in their reportage over the years. In December 2010, on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,”Washington Post columnist Esther Cepeda, mentioned the negative reaction that engulfed one newspaper in California when it used “illegal immigrant.”

“The Fresno Bee in California wrote this eight-day series, this beautifully reported series about all the issues surrounding illegal immigration in California’s Central Valley. And they’re talking about it from an economic perspective, a personal perspective, a bureaucratic perspective, political perspective. And yet what garnered the headlines is that some of the people reading the pieces were just inflamed because the newspaper took the Associated Press Stylebook’s standard of calling illegal immigrants illegal immigrants. And they were just inflamed. It was like the entire conversation went off of how this issue affects a particular community. And it became all about language.”

Truth and factual accuracy should be the benchmark standard when it comes to the use of language, not political pressure from organized interest groups.

– The Editors

We often hear that we are living in a “Politically Correct” era. This is treated as an annoyance when, in reality, the ever-accelerating widespread effort to expunge words and terminology from the vernacular should sound alarm bells.

“Political Correctness” has been viewed as a well-intentioned way of combating bigotry by eliminating words of hatred and politely expunging words that are defamatory, insulting, humiliating, or denigrating. Certainly the desire to be compassionate, fair, and considerate is laudable.

It is important to be clear, the true “curse words” are words that insult or humiliate other people. Decent and compassionate people want to be considerate and respectful in their interactions with others.

Reasonable individuals avoid hurtful language to describe other people.